devilshalo

The Hollywood Reporter
May 26, 2010
Meet the men who could play Spider-Man (exclusive)

Even as Alvin Sargent rewrites the script for Columbia’s rebooted “Spider-Man,” director Marc Webb has been ensnaring actors in his web(b) in his search for the new Peter Parker, aka Spider-Man.

Webb has been meeting and reading actors quietly for several months, but the list has narrowed in the past week or two. No screen tests have been conducted at this early stage (though it will be a requirement), and insiders point out that the director and studio are still on the lookout.

The candidates for the web-slinger include:

Jamie Bell: The 24-year-old English actor, repped by WME and Artists Independent Management, who made his film debut playing the title character in “Billy Elliot,” has been doing the proper British actor thing in period movies such as “Nicholas Nickleby” and “Jane Eyre” (he’s also appeared in Hollywood movies such as Peter Jackson’s “King Kong” and Ed Zwick’s “Defiance”). More important, he’s already stepped into the comics world by portraying Tintin in Jackson and Steven Spielberg’s “The Adventures of Tintin” movie, which won’t hit screens until December 2011.

Alden Ehrenreich: The Los Angeles-born 20-year-old has a juicy backstory, having been “discovered” by Spielberg, who saw a comedy video starring Ehrenreich at a bat mitzvah of his daughter’s friend. A couple of TV appearances followed, but the actor’s next big leap came when he was cast by Francis Ford Coppola in 2009’s “Tetro.” He is repped by WME.

Frank Dillane: The 19-year-old Brit’s main credit is last year’s “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince,” where he played a young Tom Riddle. Is a minor role in a “Potter” film a good springboard for a mega-franchise? It worked for Robert Pattinson.

Andrew Garfield: The L.A.-born actor had a short stint on a BBC TV series called “Sugar Rush” but gained notices for playing a young reporter in a gritty British TV movie trilogy titled “Red Riding.” The 27-year-old appeared in “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus” and will be seen in David Fincher’s movie about Facebook, “The Social Network.” He is repped by CAA and the Collective.

Josh Hutcherson: The youngest actor of the bunch -- he turns 18 this year -- is also the one with the most experience. The past six years alone have seen the Kentucky-born kid rack up credits with key roles in Jon Favreau’s “Zathura,” drama “Bridge to Terabithia” and the upcoming “Red Dawn” remake. He appears in the Sundance hit “The Kids Are All Right,” which insider buzz suggests could be an Oscar contender, and starred with Brendan Fraser in “Journey to the Center of the Earth.”

Hutcherson, repped by ICM and Beddingfield, just signed on to star in the “Journey” sequel, and that movie could prove a fly in the ointment if the actor’s schedule collides with “Spider-Man.” (Though you can bet every effort would be made to make it work.)

The group of actors seems to fall in line with what Webb has been looking to do with his take on Spider-Man, which is to cast relative unknowns in a story that roots Parker back in high school. The movie will be an angst-ridden tale of a teen dealing with the knowledge that his uncle died even though he had the power to stop it.

Columbia wants to begin production by year’s end, but Webb and the studio are taking their time choosing the actor while Sargent gets the script in spider-shape.

A Columbia spokesperson did not comment on the casting process, saying “There have been a number of names floated online and almost every week, someone calls with a new rumor. We are not commenting on the casting process or rumors such as these.”

- Borys Kit

wearetheborg

Case in point: the success of Avatar.

Blu Man

That film had a better story and concept then most blockbusters...

wearetheborg

Spiderman-3 was loads better than Avatar (note that I did not see Avatar in theater, I saw it on dvd).



This rebooting trend is getting ridiculous. Do superheroe movies have nothing to offer beyond the origin storylines ?

devilshalo

When the main character goes thru a casting change, I would tend to think not (Kilmer and Clooney being the exception).

AnonomusBob15

Spider-Man 3 sucks balls, FACT. It is better than no film made by ANY real filmmaker.

fumanstan

Given that the 2nd installment in most superhero movies have been highly regarded (X2, Spider-Man 2, Superman 2, The Dark Knight) I'd say yes.

Jedi Master 33

Fixed.

Catwoman
Batman and Robin
Any Uwe Boll film
Any Sci Fi Channel Original Movie
Superman 4


Just to name a few.

Artman

I find they're usually the most satisfying ones. The studio in this case decided the return on investment would not be worth it given the cost. It will have been 10yrs since the first, I'd imagine they'll look for another 10+yrs from these next ones.

AnonomusBob15

Garbage, sure, but not one film made by any credible filmmaker.

sorry I just think that there is no possible way for anyone to view Spider-Man 3 as a better film than Avatar. Unless Cameron touched them as a child or something, or you run the web's #1 SP3 fan site.

Jedi Master 33

I never said it was better than Avatar. I just think it isn't as bad as people make it out to be. There are a lot worse movies than Spider-man 3.

fumanstan

I'd say Joel Schumacher is a credible film maker.

Supermallet

You can almost always find a worse movie than whatever bad movie you're talking about (unless it's Manos: The Hands of Fate, The Room, or Troll 2), but that doesn't mean you should give a pass to said bad movie. And Spider-Man 3 is one of those movies that gets worse with each viewing, imo.

Jedi Master 33

Fair enough. I personally enjoy Spider-man 3 despite it's flaws. I don't think it's a bad movie IMO.

wearetheborg

Is a 10 year 3 movie run all that can be told ?
I was excited on seeing Spiderman-1. I still remember seeing it in theaters.
Seeing the origin story again so soon would not be very exciting for me.

Supermallet

To me, it's kind of like the superhero equivalent of Showgirls. Big, gaudy, overreaching, and very unintentionally campy. Also, both movies have one actor who know exactly what movie they're in and steal the show (Gina Gershon for Showgirls, and James Franco for Spider-Man 3).

I could write an essay on every problem with Spider-Man 3, but I'll try and just knock it down to a few salient bullet points:

1. Retconning the death of Uncle Ben. It's a feeble attempt to heighten the emotion of the Sandman, who is an utterly bland villain in every way.

2. Mary-Jane. OK, aside from the fact that Kirsten "Snaggletooth" Dunst was always a terrible choice to play MJ, the character as written makes no sense in this movie. Let's remember that in SM2, she was a successful model AND actress. In this movie, she does poorly in one musical, has a single bad review written about her, is fired, and takes a job as a waitress. WTF? She's also shrill and one-note throughout the movie. If I were Peter Parker, I would have dumped MJ as written for Gwen Stacy.

3. Gwen Stacy. Pointless additional character written in for no reason other than to drive a wedge between Peter and MJ.

4. Venom. Shoehorning Venom, a character with a convoluted backstory, into a movie with TWO other main villains, was a huge mistake that we can at least blame on the execs, but it still drags the movie down. I'll let you decide whether or not Emo Parker is a separate bad bullet point or part of this one.

5. The writing out of Harry Osborne. Harry was always destined to be the big villain of SM3. The setup was there in the first movie. But because Venom had to be written in, Harry gets written out. How else could you explain the head injury that makes him disappear until the third act? This completely robs the character of his arc and makes the ending ring hollow.

6. Almost every scene that wasn't action. The dialogue was awful throughout the film, the character relationships forced, the plot contrived.

If that's a good film, then I don't want to see good movies.

AnonomusBob15

maybe, but that's very debatable.

Supermallet

Schumacher is definitely a credible filmmaker. He doesn't always make good movies, but he's a name director.

stingermck

Yeah Take B&R out of the list, and he has some very good movies.

I wonder how audiences are going to take angst Spidey. Comic readers know hes always beating himself up over every little thing.

AnonomusBob15

eh, I usually agree with you, but I shot over to his IMDB page and there is NOTHING memorable on it, save for Batman & Robin.

I know he can churn out a decent picture, but he hasn't done so in years, and with more failures than success, I consider him a wanker of a filmmaker.

But, that is opinion. I'm sure he's got fans.

sauce07

Phone Booth & Tigerland were both made in the past decade

AnonomusBob15

I would probably say Tigerland is his best film. though I still don't think that's saying a whole helluvalot.

bee_01

EDIT: didn't see we had 2 spider-man threads already.

tylergfoster

http://techland.com/2010/06/07/sony-...ew-spider-man/

Jamie Bell? If so, good plan.

toddly6666

Jamie Bell would be good casting...a likeable intense young actor, unlike that other bunch of possible actors and Tobey Maguire.